Has racism played a part in the rise of the Tea Party in the republican party?

[nehalem256]

a chart from MOTHERJONES.COM showing southern republicans as racist? lol color me surprised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

This election exhibited the continuation of some of the polarization trends evident in the 2000 and 2004 elections.[230] McCain won whites 55-43 percent, while Obama won blacks 95-4 percent,[231] Hispanics 67-31 percent, and Asians 62-35 percent. Voters aged 18–29 voted for Obama by 66–32 percent while elderly voters backed McCain 53–45 percent

where as from here, http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_04.html#.UGd7mIqPVQI

it was 88%(Kerry) - 11%(Bush)

From this I would infer that ~63% of Black voters who voted Bush switched their vote to Obama because he was black.

I am thinking Democrats may not want to play the racism card.

EDIT: the white vote went from 58% Bush -> 55% Mccain, this means that 5% of white Bush voters switched their vote. Using this as a control group. 58% of black people voted Bush switched their vote to Obama, because they are racists.

 

[OCGuy]

Does racism play a part in the fact that 95%+ of blacks vote for Obama?

Where is that poll?

 

[Tom]

Thats nice.
What does it have to do with people fucking themselves over then begging for freebies?

A person is responsible for their life choices.

If you act like an animal your should be treated like one.

does it pain you to know there are people like me who want all Americans to have enough to eat and a decent place to sleep at night ?

And that all kids deserve the same chance to succeed, and we should pay for that to happen ?

 

[nehalem256]

does it pain you to know there are people like me who want all Americans to have enough to eat and a decent place to sleep at night ?

And that all kids deserve the same chance to succeed, and we should pay for that to happen ?

Under my beliefs no children starve either. And in fact would have a greater chance to succeed, because people who could not take care of children would not be allowed to have them.

What pains me is that you lack the balls to hold women accountable for their choices. And want men to pay for their poor life choices.

 

[lotus503]

He wants to take from the successful people and give free handouts to the lazy & useless.

Thats pretty damn liberal to me.

By adjusting the tax code to be more in line with the Reagan years.

Sorry but your the one supporting handouts.

You just prefer they go to the rich and corporations.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

does it pain you to know there are people like me who want all Americans to have enough to eat and a decent place to sleep at night ?

And that all kids deserve the same chance to succeed, and we should pay for that to happen ?

At whose expense will you attempt to create this paradise of equal outcomes for inverse decisions made in life by totally different individuals? Oh right at the expense and cost of everyone else and without their consent. However the worst part of this belief of yours is that you do even acknowledge that equal outcomes for unequal decisions/actions is not something government can achieve in reasonable or sound manner that does not involve lowering everyone elses standard of living to the lowest possible degree so that "Success" is achieved only because the standard itself was lowered so close to the ground that any fool could easily walk over it.

 

[lotus503]

Under my beliefs no children starve either. And in fact would have a greater chance to succeed, because people who could not take care of children would not be allowed to have them.

What pains me is that you lack the balls to hold women accountable for their choices. And want men to pay for their poor life choices.

If a woman got pregnant she didn't do it herself, if more men would step up and support their kids, the women would need less welfare.

So welfare queens are partially caused by deadbeat kings.

And you support forced birth control?

Mighty fascist of you

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Under my beliefs no children starve either. And in fact would have a greater chance to succeed, because people who could not take care of children would not be allowed to have them.

What pains me is that you lack the balls to hold women accountable for their choices. And want men to pay for their poor life choices.

It's not that they would not or should not be allowed to have them instead it should be that there should be a clear and easy to identify cost for them to notice and understand.

Otherwise you end up with a world in which fools have their failures cleaned up and brushed under the rug for them by goverment so that the world itself is eventually only populated by fools who think nothing of the cost of their mistakes and/or actions.

 

[nehalem256]

If a woman got pregnant she didn't do it herself, if more men would step up and support their kids, the women would need less welfare.

A zygote is not a child.

It is 100% a woman's choice to bear a child. Liberals have been saying for 4 decades that having sex does not mean you have to be responsible for a child.

So welfare queens are partially caused by deadbeat kings.

Welfare queens are caused by women CHOOSING to bear child she cannot afford.

And you support forced birth control?

Mighty fascist of you

As long as I do not have to pay for them I don't care how it happens.

EDIT: The most a man should be held accountable for is $250, for half the cost of an abortion... assuming the woman even knows who the father is.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

If a woman got pregnant she didn't do it herself, if more men would step up and support their kids, the women would need less welfare.

So welfare queens are partially caused by deadbeat kings.

You're right it did take two to tango and the father should have to deal with the repercussions of his actions just as much as the woman who allowed the act onf conception to occur.

And you support forced birth control?

Mighty fascist of you.

And would you support goverment shoving its unwanted hand down everyone else's pockets without their consent or else? Especially if your appeal to sympathy doesn't hold up.

Mighty facist of you.

 

[Tom]

At whose expense will you attempt to create this paradise of equal outcomes for inverse decisions made in life by totally different individuals? Oh right at the expense and cost of everyone else and without their consent. However the worst part of this belief of yours is that you do even acknowledge that equal outcomes for unequal decisions/actions is not something government can achieve in reasonable or sound manner that does not involve lowering everyone elses standard of living to the lowest possible degree so that "Success" is achieved only because the standard itself was lowered so close to the ground that any fool could easily walk over it.

having enough to eat isn't the same as an elevator for your automobile. It isn't equal outcomes I'm talking about.

And there is no paying for welfare without consent. Get more people to vote for your plan to let kids starve and you can have your way.

And plenty of people "succeed" very nicely while paying taxes that help keep people from starving or sleeping under bridges.

If you can't, its not the poor or people who made bad choices who are to blame.

Additionally, strictly from an economic standpoint, the products the neediest people consume, food and shelter, promote economic growth here to a greater degree than the alternative of people buying a few more electronic gadgets that are produced overseas.

 

[shortylickens]

By adjusting the tax code to be more in line with the Reagan years.

Sorry but your the one supporting handouts.

You just prefer they go to the rich and corporations.

I am?
I do?
I did not know that.
What else do I support?

 

[Greenman]

I would have thought the poll split to be 20/80, the 30/60 numbers currently showing are a bit of a surprise. There must be a few closet conservatives around here.